Contact us
|
Home
|
Login
| Users Online: 348
Feedback
Subscribe
Advertise
Search
Advanced Search
Month wise articles
Figures next to the month indicate the number of articles in that month
2021
April
[
4
]
March
[
7
]
February
[
3
]
January
[
6
]
2020
December
[
2
]
November
[
5
]
October
[
3
]
September
[
2
]
August
[
8
]
July
[
4
]
June
[
2
]
May
[
1
]
April
[
3
]
March
[
3
]
February
[
6
]
January
[
1
]
2019
December
[
6
]
November
[
4
]
September
[
4
]
August
[
3
]
July
[
6
]
June
[
1
]
May
[
2
]
April
[
6
]
March
[
3
]
February
[
4
]
January
[
2
]
2018
December
[
10
]
November
[
4
]
October
[
3
]
September
[
4
]
August
[
1
]
July
[
3
]
June
[
5
]
May
[
4
]
April
[
10
]
March
[
2
]
February
[
4
]
2017
December
[
5
]
November
[
4
]
October
[
3
]
September
[
9
]
July
[
5
]
June
[
2
]
May
[
4
]
April
[
6
]
March
[
6
]
February
[
7
]
2016
December
[
7
]
November
[
5
]
October
[
3
]
September
[
7
]
August
[
1
]
July
[
7
]
May
[
8
]
April
[
7
]
March
[
4
]
February
[
2
]
January
[
5
]
2015
November
[
4
]
October
[
5
]
September
[
5
]
August
[
4
]
July
[
3
]
June
[
19
]
May
[
5
]
April
[
1
]
March
[
5
]
February
[
9
]
January
[
3
]
2014
November
[
2
]
October
[
5
]
September
[
4
]
August
[
6
]
July
[
8
]
June
[
1
]
May
[
3
]
March
[
8
]
February
[
3
]
January
[
4
]
2013
December
[
5
]
November
[
2
]
October
[
4
]
September
[
4
]
August
[
3
]
July
[
3
]
June
[
5
]
May
[
7
]
March
[
18
]
February
[
1
]
January
[
1
]
2012
December
[
6
]
November
[
1
]
October
[
4
]
September
[
4
]
August
[
7
]
July
[
2
]
June
[
1
]
May
[
2
]
April
[
7
]
March
[
6
]
February
[
7
]
January
[
13
]
2011
December
[
3
]
November
[
1
]
October
[
7
]
August
[
9
]
July
[
3
]
June
[
7
]
May
[
3
]
March
[
6
]
February
[
8
]
January
[
6
]
2010
December
[
4
]
November
[
1
]
October
[
6
]
September
[
1
]
August
[
6
]
July
[
6
]
May
[
5
]
» Articles published in the past year
To view other articles click corresponding year from the navigation links on the left side.
All
|
Abstracts
|
Book Review
|
Brief Report
|
Commentary
|
Editorial
|
Editorials
|
Guidelines
|
Original Article
|
Original Articles
|
Research Article
|
Review Articles
|
Symposium
|
Technical Note
|
View Point
Export selected to
Endnote
Reference Manager
Procite
Medlars Format
RefWorks Format
BibTex Format
Show all abstracts
Show selected abstracts
Export selected to
Add to my list
Original Article:
Subspecialty surgical pathologist's performances as triage pathologists on a telepathology-enabled quality assurance surgical pathology service: A human factors study
Beth L. Braunhut, Anna R. Graham, Fangru Lian, Phyllis D. Webster, Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Achyut K. Bhattacharyya, Ronald S. Weinstein
J Pathol Inform
2014, 5:18 (26 May 2014)
DOI
:10.4103/2153-3539.133142
PMID
:25057432
Background:
The case triage practice workflow model was used to manage incoming cases on a telepathology-enabled surgical pathology quality assurance (QA) service. Maximizing efficiency of workflow and the use of pathologist time requires detailed information on factors that influence telepathologists' decision-making on a surgical pathology QA service, which was gathered and analyzed in this study.
Materials and
Methods:
Surgical pathology report reviews and telepathology service logs were audited, for 1862 consecutive telepathology QA cases accrued from a single Arizona rural hospital over a 51 month period. Ten university faculty telepathologists served as the case readers. Each telepathologist had an area of subspecialty surgical pathology expertise (i.e. gastrointestinal pathology, dermatopathology, etc.) but functioned largely as a general surgical pathologist while on this telepathology-enabled QA service. They handled all incoming cases during their individual 1-h telepathology sessions, regardless of the nature of the organ systems represented in the real-time incoming stream of outside surgical pathology cases.
Results:
The 10 participating telepathologists' postAmerican Board of pathology examination experience ranged from 3 to 36 years. This is a surrogate for age. About 91% of incoming cases were immediately signed out regardless of the subspecialty surgical pathologists' area of surgical pathology expertise. One hundred and seventy cases (9.13%) were deferred. Case concurrence rates with the provisional surgical pathology diagnosis of the referring pathologist, for incoming cases, averaged 94.3%, but ranged from 88.46% to 100% for individual telepathologists. Telepathology case deferral rates, for second opinions or immunohistochemistry, ranged from 4.79% to 21.26%. Differences in concordance rates and deferral rates among telepathologists, for incoming cases, were significant but did not correlate with years of experience as a practicing pathologist. Coincidental overlaps of the area of subspecialty surgical pathology expertise with organ-related incoming cases did not influence decisions by the telepathologists to either defer those cases or to agree or disagree with the referring pathologist's provisional diagnoses.
Conclusions:
Subspecialty surgical pathologists effectively served as general surgical pathologists on a telepathology-based surgical pathology QA service. Concurrence rates with incoming surgical pathology report diagnoses, and case deferral rates, varied significantly among the 10 on-service telepathologists. We found no evidence that the higher deferral rates correlated with improving the accuracy or quality of the surgical pathology reports.
[ABSTRACT]
[HTML Full text]
[PDF]
[Mobile Full text]
[EPub]
[Citations (1) ]
[PubMed]
[Sword Plugin for Repository]
Beta
Brief Report:
Accuracy of the CellaVision DM96 platform for reticulocyte counting
Etienne R. Mahe, Diane Higa, Christopher Naugler, Adnan Mansoor, Meer-Taher Shabani-Rad
J Pathol Inform
2014, 5:17 (26 May 2014)
DOI
:10.4103/2153-3539.133127
PMID
:25057431
Context:
Many hematology laboratories have adopted semi-automated digital platforms for routine use and the evidence supporting their use is increasing.
Aims:
The CellaVision platforms are among the most thoroughly studied digital hematology platforms; we wished to determine the accuracy of CellaVision for reticulocyte counting.
Design, Materials and
Methods:
We compared reticulocyte counts performed manually, using the Beckman Coulter LH750 automated analyzer and with the CellaVision DM96 platform. We analyzed the results for pair-wise correlation and bias, and precision.
Statistical Analyses Used:
Analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS), including Spearman's rho correlation coefficient, Friedman's two-way Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) for comparison of distributions; bias was compared by way of mean and standard deviation.
Results:
The CellaVision reticulocyte counts correlated most strongly with those of the analyzer (often considered the benchmark test); the reticulocyte count distributions were noted not to be significantly different from each other across all three methods. The mean and standard deviation of bias were lowest in the comparison of CellaVision and LH750 counts.
Conclusions:
Our data provide additional support for the accuracy of digital hematology applications using the CellaVision DM96 platform.
[ABSTRACT]
[HTML Full text]
[PDF]
[Mobile Full text]
[EPub]
[PubMed]
[Sword Plugin for Repository]
Beta
Research Article:
Digital pathology: A systematic evaluation of the patent landscape
Ioan C. Cucoranu, Anil V. Parwani, Suryanarayana Vepa, Ronald S. Weinstein, Liron Pantanowitz
J Pathol Inform
2014, 5:16 (26 May 2014)
DOI
:10.4103/2153-3539.133112
PMID
:25057430
Introduction:
Digital pathology is a relatively new field. Inventors of technology in this field typically file for patents to protect their intellectual property. An understanding of the patent landscape is crucial for companies wishing to secure patent protection and market dominance for their products. To our knowledge, there has been no prior systematic review of patents related to digital pathology. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically identify and evaluate United States patents and patent applications related to digital pathology.
Materials and Methods:
Issued patents and patent applications related to digital pathology published in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database (
www.uspto.gov
) (through January 2014) were searched using the Google Patents search engine (Google Inc., Mountain View, California, USA). Keywords and phrases related to digital pathology, whole-slide imaging (WSI), image analysis, and telepathology were used to query the USPTO database. Data were downloaded and analyzed using the Papers application (Mekentosj BV, Aalsmeer, Netherlands).
Results:
A total of 588 United States patents that pertain to digital pathology were identified. In addition, 228 patent applications were identified, including 155 that were pending, 65 abandoned, and eight rejected. Of the 588 patents granted, 348 (59.18%) were specific to pathology, while 240 (40.82%) included more general patents also usable outside of pathology. There were 70 (21.12%) patents specific to pathology and 57 (23.75%) more general patents that had expired. Over 120 unique entities (individual inventors, academic institutions, and private companies) applied for pathology specific patents. Patents dealt largely with telepathology and image analysis. WSI related patents addressed image acquisition (scanning and focus), quality (z-stacks), management (storage, retrieval, and transmission of WSI files), and viewing (graphical user interface (GUI), workflow, slide navigation and remote control). An increasing number of recent patents focused on computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) and digital consultation networks.
Conclusion:
In the last 2 decades, there have been an increasing number of patents granted and patent applications filed related to digital pathology. The number of these patents quadrupled during the last decade, and this trend is predicted to intensify based on the number of patent applications already published by the USPTO.
[ABSTRACT]
[HTML Full text]
[PDF]
[Mobile Full text]
[EPub]
[Citations (4) ]
[PubMed]
[Sword Plugin for Repository]
Beta
Sitemap
|
What's New
|
Feedback
|
Disclaimer
|
© Journal of Pathology Informatics | Published by Wolters Kluwer -
Medknow
Online since 10
th
March, 2010